So I was just listening to El Rushbo, and heard that Obama has about 19 million Twitter followers, but a new web tool has determined that about 70% of those followers are fake. Here is the original New York Times article, the USA Today article, and an example of a website that sells followers (Web of Trust gave it a poor safety rating). Now, I'm not suggesting that Romney isn't buying followers either, even though he has only about 900,000 followers, but isn't this obvious deception of the American people? If Obama will lie about his number of Twitter followers, doesn't it seem likely that he will (and has) lie(d) about other, more important issues? Thoughts, opinions, and snack ideas are all welcome.
have you ever heard the saying if we cant trust you with the little things than how can we trust you with the big ones?
when it comes down to it, you will only care about the little things if you oppose the person who does them. for example, tactical_fish opposed obama on this insignificant story because he listens to rush limbaugh, who opposes obama. if you listen to rush limbaugh oppose obama, then chances are you also oppose obama.
I oppose romney because I know for a fact that he has changed his entire political outlook at least 3 times, which pretty much says he will say anything to get into a position of power. chances are, the next time he changes his opinion (no matter how minor) I will be making a big deal of it.
If we cannot trust someone only because of the little things, we can basically forget all trust in politics in general. Every politician does little things to get more popular or polish one's image. But we can support the ones we think are capable of having an own opinion and following it, instead of playing puppet like Romney.
But the point is that Obama is flat out lying to America, and the proof that he is lying is right is his face, yet he continues to spew lies. Maybe this isn't a big deal with him, since lying, or concealing the truth when the public has a right to know, has always been a huge part of Obama's administration.
Technically Twitter is a global site, so you know, I agree with you, not only is Obama lying to all of America, but the entire world. You know this is just like that time he printed up a fake birth certificate and got himself elected. Sickening really.
Did you happen to read the portion about how for the most part fake followers target younger users? I suppose they paid for their followers too? Seriously, it's Twitter, it doesn't matter.
"I"m going to take something really minor about obama's life and blow it up to the size of a hot air balloon
It's because the rest of the media consistently pounds on the republicans. It's hypocritical. You insult Romney about taking care of his dog, but we can't insult Obama for lying. He has lied. He will lie. It's just a matter of how much crap your willing to take before you understand it. Has anyone heard about "Fast and Furious"? Basically, mr. Obamas staff went and gave American guns to drug cartels in Mexico. Obama said he was not involved, but later used executive privilege (not sure if I remember that correctly). That basically can't be used unless the white house is involved. I really don't care about twitter, I don't think Obama should have one due to what hackers can do. But yeah, he lies. And the funny thing is that the media doesn't care. At all. It's being compared to the watergate schandel, but the democratic media doesn't care whatsoever, they are much more interesting in bashing romneys running mate's clothing. Talk about "blowing things up". They said "he had wrinkles in his shirt and pants". Deffinetly news worthy.
It's because the rest of the media consistently pounds on the republicans. It's hypocritical. You insult Romney about taking care of his dog, but we can't insult Obama for lying.
the level during your election period is very high i see.
It's because the rest of the media consistently pounds on the republicans. It's hypocritical. You insult Romney about taking care of his dog, but we can't insult Obama for lying.
While I see what you're going for with the "liberal media" angle, don't you think there's a bit of a difference between the number of followers some one has and placing a dog on the roof of your car? Regardless of carriers.
So he had wrinkles in his clothes, he was also appearing on national television, there is some burden of forethought here. And tell me that Fox News and co. didn't make a huge deal out of this whole Twitter shebang.
one has and placing a dog on the roof of your car? Regardless of carriers.
Yeah, well Romney and crew came back with the fact that Obama actually ate a dog. Me thinks Obama shouldn't criticize on that subject.
tell me that Fox News and co. didn't make a huge deal out of this whole Twitter shebang.
This is the first I'm hearing about the twitter thang. I have been away but still.
So he had wrinkles in his clothes, he was also appearing on national television, there is some burden of forethought here
I can comeback with the fact that the Internet is an international stage. One shouldn't pull things like that to look "cool". Once again I don't think he really needs twitter. I mean, I don't know why you would follow him. Everything he does (expet fast and furious) is on the news 24/7. It's kinda dumb in my opinion.
Yeah, well Romney and crew came back with the fact that Obama actually ate a dog. Me thinks Obama shouldn't criticize on that subject.
dog is a delicacy in many parts of the world. they breed dogs just for that purpose (south korea is one of them. I've lived there for a while so I have a thurough experience of their culture and customs). I'm pretty sure that if romney was put in a position where it would be better to do something he wouldn't want to do, like eat dog, then I'm quite positive that he would grab a fork and get to work.
pickpocket, to be honest the only plce that shows qualities of "liberal media" is MSNBC. fox news counterbalances it with programs such as "fox and friends" and "Huckabee". the only one of the 3 top political news stations under private ownership that can be even considered moderate is CNN. not to mention people like glenn beck and rush limbaugh and hannity (sigh...hannity) on AM radio who do whatever it takes to slander the president. the only place on the radio that is actually rather balanced is NPR (yes, it is actually quite balanced).
I wouldn't go that far blade. I'm sure their are some nice stations that actually do take in both sides, but it's not most liberal stations. The only one of the stations you listed under conservative that I occasionally listen to is beck, only because some of the things he brings up I find funny. The rest is just yelling at the callers. Then you have the opposite side where they pick at the wrinkles in clothes and.... Well if the Simpsons ever taught me anything (I'm linking it with my phone, it might be wrong.).... This just made me laugh. But I'm sure one of you will come back with something like this
But no, blade, sorry but their isn't any real, true, even, equal station for both sides that actually cover everything. That would be nice, I mean, them actually focusing on news and not twitter and wrinkles.
Whilst we're on it, in the mud, someone should really point out Romney isn't innocent at this game shouldn't they?
Reports have found telltale signals that about a quarter of the new followers of Romney since his Twitter explosion in July were less than three weeks old and had not tweeted. Some 80% were less than three-months-old. He gained 116,922 in a single day, 21 July. Around a tenth have since been suspended by Twitter.
Let's blow this up and get down to the really dirty mud slinging.
